“When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A ‘nice’ meal only means a meal the speaker likes.)”
-C.S. Lewis
-C.S. Lewis
Recently, I was asked why something unpleasant would be categorized under “entertainment.” The inquirer was someone considerably younger than myself, and seemed to be under the unsurprisingly common assumption that what entertains must necessarily be pleasant or at least pleasure-inducing.
I did what anyone put on the spot would do: I started feverishly racking my brains hoping I wouldn’t have to pull something out of my ass (like a lot of adults do when children ask pointed, naïve questions). Luckily, the astounding array of unpleasant reality TV shows both past and present came to my rescue: Jersey Shore, Fear Factor, Dirty Jobs, The Bachelor, The Real World, and Keeping up with the Kardashians to name a few.
His question answered, the satisfied pupil went along his way, and I was left wondering about the elasticity of words. The more I thought about it, the more perplexing his question became. And the more I began to wonder if I had shortchanged my answer to his question.
My initial reaction was to dub his query unsurprising because of the typically positive connotations that the word ‘entertainment’ often carries. Historically used to refer to generally pleasant diversions and occupations of the mind, ‘entertainment’ has long been used to refer to recreational artistic performances (think court jesters and medieval minstrels) which brought relief from the every day by inducing amusement and laughter.
The equally surprising nature of his question, though, lies in the seemingly unacknowledged omnipresence of more modern forms of entertainment that eluded him perhaps momentarily. Because let’s face it: you would be hard pressed to find someone today who is unaware of the ubiquitous presence ‘entertainment’ has in the collective consciousness. Young people of today’s generation most likely won’t be able to recall a time “Entertainment” didn’t have its own category on veritably every local and international news channel; in fact, the volume and demand of what many consider entertainment today has now warranted its own channel just to keep track of it all (Entertainment Tonight, ENews!, etc.). And by ‘keep track’, I mean all of it: the good, the bad and the ugly. Brangelina’s latest adoption case and Oprah’s recent trip to Africa is right up there along with rumors of a Jolie-Pitt split and the day time talk show goddess’s fluctuating weight patterns. Fashion faux pas, box office flops and award show flubs all get equitable time under the limelight.
What’s more, with the advent of Youtube, Myspace, Facebook and other such user-generated sites, entertainment (and ensuing celebrity) is no longer exclusively the domain of the rich and famous: the recently coined term “Youtube sensation” attests to the rising number of self-made stars today’s generation boasts. Of course, you’ll always get a bad apple or two (or three…). I still don’t know if it’s entirely a ‘good’ thing that anyone and everyone has access to post whatever they want, whenever they want (case in point: the popping of the biggest pimple in history – look it up if you want to experience simultaneous gagging and vomiting)- though there is no denying the many useful ramifications and effects of such technology (cell phone videos capturing political chaos and acts of civilian murder in the Middle East).
Yeah, I’m off my soap box now. But before this turns into a moralizing rant on the state of the media, I must admit that not all reality shows are from the devil. My rule of thumb tends to be: If a shows states upfront its premise to be a kind of ‘show’ in the traditional sense (American Idol, So You Think You Can Dance), it will often have nothing to hide.
But I can't ignore the nagging feeling that there is something to be said about the unremitting public demand for a very particularized phenomenon of entertainment, as evidenced by the highest ratings in series history for the episode in which Jon and Kate Gosselin announce their separation in Jon and Kate Plus Eight: invasive documentation of family life. Where does this kind of insatiable curiosity come from? (Newlyweds: Nick and Jessica, anyone?) Perhaps this is a question best left to sociologists and psychologists (and therapists) but it does strike me as an interesting coincidence that the term often used to refer to the strange attraction to such shows is “guilty pleasure”. Entertainment it is and therefore pleasurable it is too, but why the guilt? If the act of deriving pleasure from another’s pain is partly to blame, one can only wonder why such desire, even in small doses, even exists.
2010 will undoubtedly be another year of such entertainment (as we speak, Snookie is rapidly turning into a household name and New Jersey into a tourist hot spot), and I don’t pretend to state my case as the first of its kind, or the most effective way of getting to the root of the problem (if you even think it is one). But the next time you hear the word “entertainment”, if you find yourself tacking on “for who?” or “at whose expense?” you might be moving closer to the real answer to the unassuming question that triggered this blog entry, an entry which has, finally, reached its end (for now).
